Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence

Too Much
The intro to this page requests that each person limit themselves to 1000 words max. Yet, KillerChihuahua has posted more than 1700 words. May we get some enforcement here, please? Perhaps KC would do the enforcement, by focussing on what she regards as my most egregious transgressions? Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The limitations on length of evidence are not always enforced to the precise letter of measurement. The key is that each participant make a concise presentation that will be readily useful to the arbitrators. As a disinterested individual serving as clerk for the case, I would say that KillerChihuahua's evidence length, while on the longer side, appears to be reasonable. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, one of the difficulties I see in this whole process is that people are not focussing on what they regard as the most significant facts. During the Request for Arbitration phase, for example, KillerChihuahua objected that I had asked her to not post at my talk page, and KC also objected that a rough draft of my request had used the title "Ferrylodge v. FeloniousMonk."  I regard those as two examples of minutae that have the slightest possible relevance to whether I ever harassed anyone.  I do not think it is fair that I be forced to address minutae, and the 1000-word limit seems like a good way to encourage people to stick to the most important facts.  Anyway, I will do my best to respond to all of this stuff over the weekend.  I believe that much of this "evidence" is not presenting an accurate picture.Ferrylodge 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone should present his or her evidence in the most concise and efficient fashion possible. This is in each editor's own interest, as the more readily the arbitrators can follow one's presentation, the more likely it is to be persusasive. Of course, if a matter is truly peripheral, it's not going to impact the result very much; yet I can still see why you would want to address each topic. But I'm not in a position as clerk to say which particular allegation is more important than another. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps also to the point: it's in a presenter's best interest to be concise. A few words well presented are far more effective than a ton of words; our eyes glaze over easily, and given the choice, we'll listen more closely to shorter rather than longer statements. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the outcome of this arbitration, I hope the committee will seriously consider having a single person (e.g. the banning administrator) sift through the evidence presented in order to find the most relevant and important and compelling and representative and accurately-documented stuff; that way the target of the proceedings will understand what he or she most needs to respond to. As mentioned, I'll try to sift through all of this over the weekend, and respond somehow to all of the accusations, which don't amount to much (in my view).  I don't see how a few words can adequately respond to those accusations, but I'll try to be as brief as possible, and I may end up putting most of my responses here at this talk page rather than further expanding the already-oversized main evidence page.  I'm also unsure how much I'm supposed to describe all my contributions to Wikipedia, as opposed to letting others look at my contributions; it feels kind of weird having to toot my own horn, but maybe that's what I'm supposed to do.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be submitting evidence in response to the 1000+ words just submitted by Tvoz.Ferrylodge 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1,033 by my count, 27 of which are apologizing for the length. Tvoz | talk 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I have now provided evidence in response to Tvoz. Just for the record, I have now been banned from editing Wikipedia articles for more than a month, beginning on September 21. I appealed to ARBCOM on October 9, but the banning administrator has yet to say anything in these proceedings even though he was editing as recently as October 21.  Also the administrator who requested the ban has thus far refused to allow me to present critical email evidence that I requested on October 19, even though she has been editing as recently as October 20.  Is there any evidence that ARBCOM would like me to address that I haven't addressed yet?Ferrylodge 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  I guess the only evidence that I haven't fully responded to yet has been Severa's.  I provided evidence in response to some of her evidence, but have not yet had time to respond to all of it; I'll try to do that here at the talk page today or tomorrow.Ferrylodge 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding B's Sock evidence
Unlike MONGO's presentation in the SoD arbcom hearing, this actually makes a case I can a) follow and b) believe. I don't know if there is any technical evidence as well, but the circumstantial stuff here is quite powerful. --Rocksanddirt 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job. Protecting Ferrylodge by believing B's innuendo.  Excellent.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, can someone explain to me how false accusations towards Felonious Monk have anything ANYTHING to do with Ferrylodge being banned forever. The evidence for Ferrylodge's banning forever is perfectly fine.  It's a disingenuous  method of moving the problem away from Ferrylodge, where it belongs, to others.  What a perfect waste of the community's time.  Where are you JzG.  We need you!!!!   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Be easy, if you look at the evidence I posted it was to endorse the CSN banning of Ferrylodge. I also am pointing out that what B put together is more compelling (to me) than what the arbcomm has found enough for a sock finding.  It belongs in this case as FM was the blocking admin.  If the arb disagrees fine.  Fighting with everyone who seems to not be 100 percent on your side is what put Ferrylodge out the door; please don't give others the opportunity to put you out with him.  --Rocksanddirt 04:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see, I'm not a tendentious editor, I don't POV-warrior, I don't attack individuals (B, probably deserves it, however), I don't idiotically attack admins through failed and bogus RfC's, and I don't make patently false accusations--given that, why would you threaten me with "put you out with him?" Furthermore, FM and ON cleared the checkuser, so I'm pretty much on the side of honesty, ethics, and whatever other subjective term you might want to use.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per OWB/SS/FWS, the CU result is entirely consistent with the work/home scenario B advances here. Anyone using one computer at work and another at home should come up "unrelated," but in the same metropolitan area, as was the case here.Proabivouac 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Psychoanalyze" ?
I suggest Ferrylodge look up to term "psychoanalyze." I think the word he may be looking for is "psychologize," namely to explain something in psychological terms. As it stands, the claims Ferrylodge has made of being "psychoanalyzed" make no sense since no one is invoking Freud. --Pleasantville 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence in reply to Severa's (please do not insert comments in the middle of this very long comment)
I've already provided evidence at the main Evidence page in reply to some of Severa's evidence. I'd like to now take this opportunity to give a more complete reply to Severa's evidence. This is going to be a rather long reply, unfortunately, so I'll link to this reply from the main Evidence page instead of putting the whole thing at the main Evidence page.

Much of Severa's evidence is incorrect. For example, Severa writes that I have said that I am “sorry for the ... FeloniousMonk block in Sept. 2007.” That is not true. The FeloniousMonk block was for harassment rather than for 3RR, and I have never acknowledged harassment, much less apologized for it. The only blocks I have apologized for are my 3RR blocks.

Likewise, Severa alleges that "Ferrylodge has had 3 blocks for 3RR since December 2006." That is not true, as I mentioned already.  I have had only two blocks for 3RR at Wikipedia, the first having been in response to Severa's own 3RR violation when she reverted five times in a 24-hour period (see summary of my blocks).

Severa notes that I changed "Freddie" to "Fred" at Fred Thompson several times in a 24-hour period. The administrator in charge of blocks at the time (Navou) said that, “I did not see any aggravating disruption, personal attacks, etc. I have protected the page and stopped the disruption there. I see no need to block in this case, and I stand by my decision to not block in this instance.” It was not the wisest conduct on my part, and I would do things differently if I could get a do-over.

Like KillerChihuahua did in her evidence, Severa cites the RCOG incident. I already responded to KC on that score. Severa is correct that several editors objected back in May to the notion that RCOG is a “pro-choice group.”  Severa says that I subsequently made edits saying that RCOG is a pro-choice group, but that is untrue. Each of my edits said that RCOG took a pro-choice position on a particular issue. This distinction, between being a “pro-choice group” on the one hand and taking a pro-choice position about something on the other hand, had been suggested by KillerChihuahua:

You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.

As evidence of my supposed incivility, Severa mentions the following rather tame remark by me from May 2007: "What a fine bunch you people are." I'd like to now put that quote in context: “neither you [Severa] nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are." I am unaware that Severa has yet addressed that blockquote above.

Anyway, let's move along now to the image that I uploaded on March 4 to Wikimedia Commons, which was an image of a model fetus held in a hand. The next day, I added that image to the Fetus article, but some people at the Fetus article objected to the new image, e.g. because that Fetus article already contained fetus images, and some editors felt the fetus-in-hand image was not neutral. Therefore, the fetus-in-hand image was removed from the Fetus article. Then on April 10, an anonymous user at the Pregnancy article inserted some vector drawings that inaccurately showed a fetus and mother. As of April 20, the only images of a fetus in the Pregnancy article were those very inaccurate vector drawings.    So, on April 20, I suggested at the Pregnancy talk page that we ought to include the image of the fetus-in-hand that I had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons the month before. Please note that I never inserted the fetus-in-hand image into the Pregnancy article; instead I tried to obtain consensus first at the talk page, but failed. Severa, for example, asserted that the fetus-in-hand image was “POV,” so I never inserted it into the Pregnancy article even though I disagreed with Severa.

Another editor (Nandesuka) pointed out on April 21 that the vector drawings, which had then been in the Pregnancy article for ten days, were “terrible,” and I agreed that the vector drawings were terrible. The vector drawings gave a misleading impression that a fetus looks like a “blob,” as Andrew c put it. That is why I called those vector drawings “pro-choice,” in the sense that they supported that POV either intentionally or unintentionally. More importantly, they were just terribly inaccurate.  At that point, at least two editors were saying that the new vector drawings were terrible. I emphasized that there was no consensus to include the vector drawings in the article, and that they had been inserted by an anonymous user only eleven days previously without any discussion. I objected to Severa’s saying that the only grounds for removal of the vector drawings was “one user’s opinion,” when actually at least two users were objecting to the new vector drawings.  I also questioned whether the images violated copyright, and I was not alone in believing that they might be derivative works.  Severa insisted that removal of the new vector drawings had to be approved by consensus, whereas my position was that insertion of the new vector drawings had to be approved by consensus.  On April 22, the number of vector drawings in the article was reduced, and I suggested that the remaining vector drawings could stay in the article with a disclaimer about their accuracy; so, the reduced number of vector drawings did then remain in the article with a disclaimer about their accuracy.  Ultimately, on August 28, I improved the Pregnancy article by helping to include some accurate fetus images, which still remain in the Pregnancy article.  I did nothing wrong throughout this episode. Severa was obviously mistaken that a consensus is required to remove material that has recently been inserted into an article without any discussion; in those circumstances, a consensus is required for inclusion, not for removal.

Severa also says that she has an example of me “deliberately misrepresenting others,” regarding the fetus-in-hand image. But, her example does not pan out. I said at the Pregnancy article that, “There have been objections to this image because the adult hand is a ‘married white male’, and I hope that such crude comments will not reappear.” And, if you look at the Fetus discussion page, you will find exactly that objection: “When I look at that picture, I see the hand of a white, male, married adult. I do not see any ‘help’ in judging the size of the fetus model.” Where's my offense? Severa adds that I “persisted” in this matter, but in fact I struck out my further comments on the matter.

Now we come again to the word “womb” in the Stillbirth article, which I already discussed in response to KillerChihuahua's evidence. Severa notes that I reverted four times within 24 hours, and indeed I received a 3RR block for it. That was my second and last 3RR block during the whole time I have been at Wikipedia, and I have repeatedly apologized for it.  Severa says that six editors objected to the word "womb" at other articles shortly before I reinserted the word "womb" into the Stillbirth article (I quibble with Severa's count because the word "womb" was not mentioned by this editor or this editor). As the editor Zsero put it, I “tried to revert the unilateral attempt [by ConfuciusOrnis] to change ‘womb’ to uterus...[and] tried for a compromise that would include both words.” There are scores of Wikipedia articles that use the word “womb,” so there are lots and lots of Wikipedia editors who do not buy into the notion that the word “womb” is POV, and that the word "uterus" must be used to the complete exclusion of the word "womb".  The whole issue was not settled as of 20 September, or else KC would not have set up a discussion titled “Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate” on 21 September.  I tried to start such a discussion at the Stillbirth article, but that discussion was cut short by KC, who also falsely accused me of spamming the Stillbirth talk page.  Please note that Hoplon agreed with me on September 20, and also Agne27 stated that "'womb' is undoubtedly the more common term." I did nothing wrong at the Stillbirth article, except violate 3RR, for which I have apologized many times.

Severa also alleges wrongdoing by me on Roe v. Wade, as I've already mentioned. She cites two “problematic changes made to the Roe article,” which she disagreed with.   I brought the Roe v. Wade article through a Featured Article Review, at the end of which I was praised for “brilliant work.” Those two content issues that Severa now complains about were successfully addressed during the featured article review, and I object to the conversion of a minor content dispute into grounds for banishing me permanently from Wikipedia.

Severa asserts that it was uncivil of me to open an RfC against Bishonen. I disagree. I honestly believe that I did not harass anyone, as I have already explained in the summary of my three blocks. Nuff said.

Severa also says it was uncivil of me to insert myself into a minor dispute on March 5 which arose between Severa and an anonymous editor on Vaccine controversy, although the dispute did not directly involve me, and I'd never edited the article in question. My comment at the anonymous user's talk page was very brief. I subsequently asked Musical Linguist to advise me on this point, and she advised "against making a habit of turning up at other user talk pages where people you're in dispute with have posted. It's not forbidden, unless it reaches a level that can be reasonably regarded as stalking, but it's at least insensitive."  I replied to Musical Linguist: "I agree it's not something that should become a habit."  It has not happened since March 5, so I would suggest that maybe I shouldn't be banned from Wikipedia for the rest of my life due to this one small oversight.

Severa takes me to task for incivilly saying that Swatjester was “vapid.” I admit it, I did. It was in response to Swatjester's remark that I was being “stupid” to object to harassment charges.  Evil Spartan said at the time: “the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made.”  I agree with what Evil Spartan said. And I also agree with what Severa recently said: "Yes, 'vapid' is rather tame." So why try to ban me from Wikipedia for the rest of my life?

Severa criticizes me for objecting to being psychoanalyzed (or psychologized, or whatever). I have already addressed that criticism at the main Evidence page, and will not repeat it here.

Yes, I did complain about Severa's "bullying" back in February. I said, "Your bullying is not going to intimidate me from using common sense and neutral information at Wikipedia." That probably was not very wise language for me to use, and I hope that it is noted Severa had to reach all the way back to February in order to find it. But I am proud of the fact that I have stood up to Severa's attempts to control article content in the abortion area. Not long before that "bullying" comment of mine, Severa altered poll results at Abortion in the United States, and I would like to now claim credit for correcting it. The poll result said that 58% of men and 72% of women believe that second trimester abortion should be illegal. Severa changed it to say that majorities of both men and women support legal second trimester abortion. Not a very subtle difference.

Severa now upbraids me for commenting “That you can pretty much get away with murder at Wikipedia, as long as you have a big pack of people to back you up.” I hope that I am proved wrong.Ferrylodge 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, why is this on the talk page and not the evidence page? Size restrictions on responses are just as applicable on the talk page as they are on the evidence page itself. I don't know about anyone else, but I glazed over about 3 paragraphs into this novella. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any further evidence to present at this point. People should feel free to ignore this long comment if they wish, but I feel it is important to get all the pertinent facts on the record.  This comment about Severa's evidence is only about 300 words longer than the evidence that KC presented.  As I said at the beginning of the long comment, I put it here instead of at the main Evidence page because of its length.  Anyway, if Brad (the clerk in this case) deems it necessary to delete this section of the talk page, then it's no huge deal as long as nothing is deleted from the main Evidence page (the link at the main Evidence page is to an old version of this talk page section rather than to the current version).Ferrylodge 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Procedural Question
Is there any mechanism for submission of evidence that would violate another editor's privacy if simply submitted to the Evidence page? Are there any written guidelines for such that I could read? --Pleasantville 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * E-mail your evidence to any active arbitrator for passing on to the arbcom's restricted mailing list. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Am I allowed to see this evidence?Ferrylodge 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The whole point of submitting evidence by e-mail would be to keep it private and confidential — for the committee's eyes only. I assume the evidence Pleasantville is asking about contains personal information of some kind. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * If the editor whose personal information is in the email has agreed to allow the committee to see it, and if the committee will use that evidence in deciding whether Ferrylodge will be indefinitely banned, I would think that out of fairness, Ferrylodge should be able to see that evidence and respond to it. Eseymour 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My strong preference would be for the evidence in question to be public, but the editor in question takes the position that his or her identity should be kept private. I disagree with Wikipedian policies about such matters, but am making a good faith attempt to comply. --Pleasantville 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that, and I appreciate the editor's concern. I don't have a problem with the evidence in question not being made public on Wikipedia, but I would hope that the committee would give the involved parties the opportunity to see the evidence, e.g. by emailing it to them. Eseymour 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would certainly agree to keep any material confidential that ARBCOM asks me to keep confidential.Ferrylodge 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, would it be okay for me to forward emails to an arbitrator that KillerChihuahua sent me in September? See here.Ferrylodge 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. It's only OK if you have KC's explicit permission. I suggest you ask her again. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Evidence emailed to the committee is deliberated on in private and is not made public to the parties. That's the way it is for privacy reasons; and evidence that does not belong on the arbitration committee email list, as I understand it, must be placed on the evidence page. As for the emails, I would not forward those communications from Killer Chihuahua without her permission. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: so if the evidence that Pleasantville would like to provide contains personal information about Ferrylodge (which I'm going to assume given the way she writes above), and no one else, wouldn't it be okay for the arbitration committee to inform Ferrylodge of the evidence so that he may offer either an explanation or a rebuttal? Because if they ban him on private evidence, that even he is not allowed to see or dispute, that's "messed up", in layman's terms. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 12:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that if it were of a nature that a response from ferrylodge would be appropriate the committee will request one from him, and provide the necessary information for him to respond with. Based on the workshop additions, I think it is about ferrylodge, and specifics will either be requested, or the items dropped by the committee.  --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why Ferrylodge requires KC's express permission to send private email to an arbitrator, but Pleasantville does not require such permission from the author of her evidence? Or am I missing something obvious here? It would seem that forwarding an email privately to an arbitrator would not require any permission, as it is not the equivalent of posting something publicly. If a defendant in a criminal trial received an email from the "real killer", would he need to get that person's permission before the email could be shown to the judge? - Crockspot 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't real life. This is Wikipedia. --Ali&#39;i 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My evidence was in the form of a series of URLs with brief explanatory text. It is not comparable. --Pleasantville 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, though something like that would seem to be able to be entered as normal evidence. - Crockspot 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Arbcom tells me it should be entered as normal evidence, I will happily do so. --Pleasantville 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there was the intimation, at least, that plenty of personally identifiable information was in Pleasantville's presentation, that would be inappropriate for general public consumption. --Rocksanddirt 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. --Pleasantville 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)